Starfield

2995 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!

Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)

Helpful links:

Spoiler policy:

No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
Add [Spoilers] to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post.
Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!

Post & comment spoiler syntax:

&lt;spoiler here>

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Demigodrick@lemmy.zip

121

Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that’s not boring, Bethesda insists (www.rockpapershotgun.com)

submitted 2 years ago by costalfy@programming.dev to c/starfield@lemmy.zip

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Notorious_handholder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Everything in Starfield feels like more clicking through (horribly outdated) menus and inventory screens. Between those and the loading screens, the only time the game is really fun is when you're shooting pirates. But there are games that do that part much much better.

This is just a summary of modern Bethesda games in a nutshell, except forgetting to mention bugs as well.

I really don't know what people where expecting with Starfield

[–] OscarRobin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

No it really isn't. In all prior Bethesda games you could get from any place in the world to any other just by walking and maybe some loading screens if you're going from/to a city or dungeon. In Starfield you have to use menus and loading screens to get from most places to most other places.

Also, Starfield places more emphasis on amassing items due to having resources etc than the previous-worst Fallout 4, and all prior Bethesda games didn't have resources to manage, just items.

So no, while Starfield is very much like previous Bethesda games, many flaws and issues are exacerbated.

[–] c0c0c0@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The game has some issues but, surprisingly, bugs really aren't one of them.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

I think Microsoft can be thanked for that. They buckled down and lent their support to make sure Starfield didn't have constant crashes and backwards flying spaceships and whatnot.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I could understand expecting improvements before they actually showed the game off; but after the very first gameplay reveal, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone familiar with BGS that it was going to be the same as Skyrim and Fallout 4, but with a different aesthetic and theme.

Everything Starfield does to blow my expectations is that it's surprisingly stable and bug free. I'm playing it with a 1660 Super and it's actually playable (I mean, only 30 fps when outside); the card isn't even supported! Fallout 4 wasn't even playable at launch (single digit fps when anywhere near Boston) and I had the recommended specs for it.